Dietary Management of the Malabsorption Syndrome

The purpose of this report is to emphasize the importance of strict dietary control of patients suffering from the malabsorption syndrome and to announce the availability of a gluten-free bread-substitute, called “Unimix”, from the Scientific Development Committee, Room 14, Medical Building, University of Toronto. Science a gluten-free diet is difficult to follow because of the widespread use of wheat flour and other cereals in the production of many common foods, a suggested gluten-free meal pattern is presented, which conforms with Canada''s Food Guide and permits a number of choices of menu within certain limits.     

Editorial for Issue 1, Jan 2016 title of the editorial 2016 : A year for JCCS Editorial changes and CCN3 KO mice at ICCNS

The year 2016 will see significant improvements for the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling with the earning of an official Impact Factor and the merger of Springer Science + Business Media and part of Macmillan Sciences and Education. It will also be an important year for the International CCN Society (ICCNS) with the nomination of a new Scientific Board and reinforcement of interactions with other major scientific societies interested in various aspects of Cell Signaling. Starting this year the ICCNS will become an official provider of CCN3 knock out mice to ICCNS members. This first step in opening up access to certified reagents as a service for our CCN scientific community is part of our intention and efforts to attain the highest degree of assistance and enabler of scientific cooperation and communication in Science Communication.     

21世纪以来蕨类植物研究论文的发表情况: 基于Web of Science的数据统计

蕨类植物是地球上起源最为古老的维管植物, 在陆生植物演化中具有重要意义。本文通过Web of Science核心数据库(Core Collection)对目前所有关于“fern”、“lycophyte”、“pteridophyte”、“pteridophyta”等的科研论文进行了分析。结果表明: (1) 2000年后, 蕨类植物论文数量增加迅速, 特别是2006年以来增加显著, 现在年均已突破600篇; (2) 2010年以来的以蕨类植物为研究材料和对象的学科和研究领域变得越来越多元化, 多学科结合和交叉的研究方向成为新趋势; (3)中国正在成为蕨类植物研究的热点国家并且成果显著; (4)中国蕨类植物研究在快速发展的同时也出现了各研究机构之间的发展不同步。期望本论文能给蕨类植物的相关研究提供新的方向, 为中国蕨类植物工作者提供借鉴。     

An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns

The use of citizen science for scientific discovery relies on the acceptance of this method by the scientific community. Using the Web of Science and Scopus as the source of peer reviewed articles, an analysis of all published articles on “citizen science” confirmed its growth, and found that significant research on methodology and validation techniques preceded the rapid rise of the publications on research outcomes based on citizen science methods. Of considerable interest is the growing number of studies relying on the re-use of collected datasets from past citizen science research projects, which used data from either individual or multiple citizen science projects for new discoveries, such as for climate change research. The extent to which citizen science has been used in scientific discovery demonstrates its importance as a research approach. This broad analysis of peer reviewed papers on citizen science, that included not only citizen science projects, but the theory and methods developed to underpin the research, highlights the breadth and depth of the citizen science approach and encourages cross-fertilization between the different disciplines.     

Comparative study of scientific publications in urology and nephrology journals originating from USA, china and Japan (2001-2010)

Background

In the past decade, scientific research has developed rapidly in China, but the growth seems to vary widely between different disciplines. In this study, we aimed to compare the quantity and quality of publications in urology and nephrology journals from USA, China and Japan.

Methods

Journals listed in the “Urology and Nephrology” category of Science Citation Index Expanded subject categories were included. Scientific papers in these journals written by researchers from USA, Japan and China were retrieved from the “PubMed” and “Web of Knowledge” online databases.

Results

The annual number of total scientific articles increased significantly from 2001 to 2010 in China, and has ranked second in the world since 2006. In the field of urology and nephrology, the annual number increased significantly from 2001 to 2010 in USA and China; but not in Japan. The share of articles increased significantly over time in China, decreased significantly in Japan, and remained unchanged in USA. In 2010, USA contributed 32.17% of the total world output in urology and nephrology field and ranked 1^st; Japan contributed 5.19% and ranked 5^th; China contributed 3.83% and ranked 9^th. Publications from USA had the highest accumulated IFs and the highest total citations of articles (USA>Japan>China, p<0.001). No significant difference was found in average IF among the three countries. USA published the most articles in the top 10 urology and nephrology journals (USA(35165)>Japan(6704)>China(2233), p<0.001). Researchers from USA published more clinical trials and randomized controlled trials than Japan and China (USA>Japan>China, p<0.001).

Conclusion

Although China has undergone significant increase in annual number and percentage of scientific publication in urology and nephrology journals in the past decade, it still lags far behind USA and Japan in the field of urology and nephrology in terms of quantity and quality.     

Academic impact of a public electronic health database: bibliometric analysis of studies using the general practice research database

Background

Studies that use electronic health databases as research material are getting popular but the influence of a single electronic health database had not been well investigated yet. The United Kingdom''s General Practice Research Database (GPRD) is one of the few electronic health databases publicly available to academic researchers. This study analyzed studies that used GPRD to demonstrate the scientific production and academic impact by a single public health database.

Methodology and Findings

A total of 749 studies published between 1995 and 2009 with ‘General Practice Research Database’ as their topics, defined as GPRD studies, were extracted from Web of Science. By the end of 2009, the GPRD had attracted 1251 authors from 22 countries and been used extensively in 749 studies published in 193 journals across 58 study fields. Each GPRD study was cited 2.7 times by successive studies. Moreover, the total number of GPRD studies increased rapidly, and it is expected to reach 1500 by 2015, twice the number accumulated till the end of 2009. Since 17 of the most prolific authors (1.4% of all authors) contributed nearly half (47.9%) of GPRD studies, success in conducting GPRD studies may accumulate. The GPRD was used mainly in, but not limited to, the three study fields of “Pharmacology and Pharmacy”, “General and Internal Medicine”, and “Public, Environmental and Occupational Health”. The UK and United States were the two most active regions of GPRD studies. One-third of GRPD studies were internationally co-authored.

Conclusions

A public electronic health database such as the GPRD will promote scientific production in many ways. Data owners of electronic health databases at a national level should consider how to reduce access barriers and to make data more available for research.     

Guessing the future of the past

I review the book “Making Prehistory: Historical Science and the Scientific Realism Debate” by Derek Turner. Turner suggests that philsophers should take seriously the historical sciences such as geology when considering philosophy of science issues. To that end, he explores the scientific realism debate with the historical sciences in mind. His conclusion is a view allied to that of Arthur Fine: a view Turner calls the natural historical attitude. While I find Turner’s motivations good, I find his characterisation of the historical sciences unconvincing. I say why in a section at the end of the review. The result is that I am unpersuaded by his thesis.     

Nothing but the truth

Many scientists blame the media for sensationalising scientific findings, but new research suggests that things can go awry at all levels, from the scientific report to the press officer to the journalist.Everything gives you cancer, at least if you believe what you read in the news or see on TV. Fortunately, everything also cures cancer, from red wine to silver nanoparticles. Of course the truth lies somewhere in between, and scientists might point out that these claims are at worst dangerous sensationalism and at best misjudged journalism. These kinds of media story, which inflate the risks and benefits of research, have led to a mistrust of the press among some scientists. But are journalists solely at fault when science reporting goes wrong, as many scientists believe [1]? New research suggests it is time to lay to rest the myth that the press alone is to blame. The truth is far more nuanced and science reporting can go wrong at many stages, from the researchers to the press officers to the diverse producers of news.Many science communication researchers suggest that science in the media is not as distorted as scientists believe, although they do admit that science reporting tends to under-represent risks and over-emphasize benefits [2]. “I think there is a lot less of this [misreported science] than some scientists presume. I actually think that there is a bit of laziness in the narrative around science and the media,” said Fiona Fox, Director of the UK Science Media Centre (London, UK), an independent press office that serves as a liaison between scientists and journalists. “My bottom line is that, certainly in the UK, a vast majority of journalists report science accurately in a measured way, and it''s certainly not a terrible story. Having said that, lots of things do go wrong for a number of reasons.”Fox said that the centre sees everything from fantastic press releases to those that completely misrepresent and sensationalize scientific findings. They have applauded news stories that beautifully reported the caveats and limitations of a particular scientific study, but they have also cringed as a radio talk show pitted a massive and influential body of research against a single non-scientist sceptic.“You ask, is it the press releases, is it the universities, is it the journalists? The truth is that it''s all three,” Fox said. “But even admitting that is admitting more complexity. So anyone who says that scientists and university press officers deliver perfectly accurate science and the media misrepresent it […] that really is not the whole story.”Scientists and scientific institutions today invest more time and effort into communicating with the media than they did a decade ago, especially given the modern emphasis on communicating scientific results to the public [3]. Today, there are considerable pressures on scientists to reach out and even ‘sell their work'' to public relations officers and journalists. “For every story that a journalist has hyped and sensationalized, there will be another example of that coming directly from a press release that we [scientists] hyped and sensationalized,” Fox said. “And for every time that that was a science press officer, there will also be a science press officer who will tell you, ‘I did a much more nuanced press release, but the academic wanted me to over claim for it''.”Although science public relations has helped to put scientific issues on the public agenda, there are also dangers inherent in the process of translation from original research to press release to media story. Previous research in the area of science communication has focused on conflicting scientific and media values, and the effects of science media on audiences. However, studies have raised awareness of the role of press releases in distorting information from the lab bench to published news [4].In a 2011 study of genetic research claims made in press releases and mainstream print media, science communication researcher Jean Brechman, who works at the US advertising and marketing research firm Gallup & Robinson, found evidence that scientific knowledge gets distorted as it is “filtered and translated for mass communication” with “slippages and inconsistencies” occurring along the way, such that the end message does not accurately represent the original science [4]. Although Brechman and colleagues found a concerning point of distortion in the transition between press release and news article, they also observed a misrepresentation of the original science in a significant portion of the press releases themselves.In a previous study, Brechman and his colleagues had also concluded that “errors commonly attributed to science journalists, such as lack of qualifying details and use of oversimplified language, originate in press releases.” Even more worrisome, as Fox told a Nature commentary author in 2009, public relations departments are increasingly filling the need of the media for quick content [5].Fox believes that a common characteristic of misrepresented science in press releases and the media is the over-claiming of preliminary studies. As such, the growing prevalence of rapid, short-format publications that publicize early results might be exacerbating the problem. Research has also revealed that over-emphasis on the beneficial effects of experimental medical treatments seen in press releases and news coverage, often called ‘spin'', can stem from bias in the abstract of the original scientific article itself [6]. Such findings warrant a closer examination of the language used in scientific articles and abstracts, as the wording and ‘spin'' of conclusions drawn by researchers in their peer-reviewed publications might have significant impacts on subsequent media coverage.Of course, some stories about scientific discoveries are just not easy to tell owing to their complexity. They are “messy, complicated, open to interpretation and ripe for misreporting,” as Fox wrote in a post on her blog On Science and the Media (fionafox.blogspot.com). They do not fit the single-page blog post or the short press release. Some scientific experiments and the peer-reviewed articles and media stories that flow from them are inherently full of caveats, contexts and conflicting results and cannot be communicated in a short format [7].In a 2012 issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, Marco Bertamini at the University of Liverpool (UK) and Marcus R. Munafo at the University of Bristol (UK) suggested that a shift toward “bite-size” publications in areas of science such as psychology might be promoting more single-study models of research, fewer efforts to replicate initial findings, curtailed detailing of previous relevant work and bias toward “false alarm” or false-positive results [7]. The authors pointed out that larger, multi-experiment studies are typically published in longer papers with larger sample sizes and tend to be more accurate. They also suggested that this culture of brief, single-study reports based on small data sets will lead to the contamination of the scientific literature with false-positive findings. Unfortunately, false science far more easily enters the literature than leaves it [8].One famous example is that of Andrew Wakefield, whose 1998 publication in The Lancet claimed to link autism with the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination. It took years of work by many scientists, and the aid of an exposé by British investigative reporter Brian Deer, to finally force retraction of the paper. However, significant damage had already been done and many parents continue to avoid immunizing their children out of fear. Deer claims that scientific journals were a large part of the problem: “[D]uring the many years in which I investigated the MMR vaccine controversy, the worst and most inexcusable reporting on the subject, apart from the original Wakefield claims in the Lancet, was published in Nature and republished in Scientific American,” he said. “There is an enormous amount of hypocrisy among those who accuse the media of misreporting science.”What factors are promoting this shift to bite-size science? One is certainly the increasing pressure and competition to publish many papers in high-impact journals, which prefer short articles with new, ground-breaking findings.“Bibliometrics is playing a larger role in academia in deciding who gets a job and who gets promoted,” Bertamini said. “In general, if things are measured by citations, there is pressure to publish as much and as often as possible, and also to focus on what is surprising; thus, we can see how this may lead to an inflation in the number of papers but also an increase in publication bias.”Bertamini points to the real possibility that measured effects emerging from a group of small samples can be much larger than the real effect in the total population. “This variability is bad enough, but it is even worse when you consider that what is more likely to be written up and accepted for publication are exactly the larger differences,” he explained.Alongside the endless pressure to publish, the nature of the peer-reviewed publication process itself prioritizes exciting and statistically impressive results. Fluke scientific discoveries and surprising results are often considered newsworthy, even if they end up being false-positives. The bite-size article aggravates this problem in what Bertamini fears is a growing similarity between academic writing and media reporting: “The general media, including blogs and newspapers, will of course focus on what is curious, funny, controversial, and so on. Academic papers must not do the same, and the quality control system is there to prevent that.”The real danger is that, with more than one million scientific papers published every year, journalists can tend to rely on only a few influential journals such as Science and Nature for science news [3]. Although the influence and reliability of these prestigious journals is well established, the risk that journalists and other media producers might be propagating the exciting yet preliminary results published in their pages is undeniable.Fox has personal experience of the consequences of hype surrounding surprising but preliminary science. Her sister has chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), a debilitating medical condition with no known test or cure. When Science published an article in 2009 linking CFS with a viral agent, Fox was naturally both curious and sceptical [9]. “I thought even if I knew that this was an incredibly significant finding, the fact that nobody had ever found a biological link before also meant that it would have to be replicated before patients could get excited,” Fox explained. “And of course what happened was all the UK journalists were desperate to splash it on the front page because it was so surprising and so significant and could completely revolutionize the approach to CFS, the treatment and potential cure.”Fox observed that while some journalists placed the caveats of the study deep within their stories, others left them out completely. “I gather in the USA it was massive, it was front page news and patients were going online to try and find a test for this particular virus. But in the end, nobody could replicate it, literally nobody. A Dutch group tried, Imperial College London, lots of groups, but nobody could replicate it. And in the end, the paper has been withdrawn from Science.”For Fox, the fact that the paper was withdrawn, incidentally due to a finding of contamination in the samples, was less interesting than the way that the paper was reported by journalists. “We would want any journal press officer to literally in the first paragraph be highlighting the fact that this was such a surprising result that it shouldn''t be splashed on the front page,” she said. Of course to the journalist, waiting for the study to be replicated is anathema in a culture that values exciting and new findings. “To the scientific community, the fact that it is surprising and new means that we should calm down and wait until it is proved,” Fox warned.So, the media must also take its share of the blame when it comes to distorting science news. Indeed, research analysing science coverage in the media has shown that stories tend to exaggerate preliminary findings, use sensationalist terms, avoid complex issues, fail to mention financial conflicts of interest, ignore statistical limitations and transform inherent uncertainties into controversy [3,10].One concerning development within journalism is the ‘balanced treatment'' of controversial science, also called ‘false balance'' by many science communicators. This balanced treatment has helped supporters of pseudoscientific notions gain equal ground with scientific experts in media stories on issues such as climate change and biotechnology [11].“Almost every time the issue of creationism or intelligent design comes up, many newspapers and other media feel that they need to present ‘both sides'', even though one is clearly nonsensical, and indeed harmful to public education,” commented Massimo Pigliucci, author of Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk [12].Fox also criticizes false balance on issues such as global climate change. “On that one you can''t blame the scientific community, you can''t blame science press officers,” she said. “That is a real clashing of values. One of the values that most journalists have bred into them is about balance and impartiality, balancing the views of one person with an opponent when it''s controversial. So on issues like climate change, where there is a big controversy, their instinct as a journalist will be to make sure that if they have a climate scientist on the radio or on TV or quoted in the newspaper, they pick up the phone and make sure that they have a climate skeptic.” However, balanced viewpoints should not threaten years of rigorous scientific research embodied in a peer-reviewed publication. “We are not saying generally that we [scientists] want special treatment from journalists,” Fox said, “but we are saying that this whole principle of balance, which applies quite well in politics, doesn''t cross over to science…”Bertamini believes the situation could be made worse if publication standards are relaxed in favour of promoting a more public and open review process. “If today you were to research the issue of human contribution to global warming you would find a consensus in the scientific literature. Yet you would find no such consensus in the general media. In part this is due to the existence of powerful and well-funded lobbies that fill the media with unfounded skepticism. Now imagine if these lobbies had more access to publish their views in the scientific literature, maybe in the form of post publication feedback. This would be a dangerous consequence of blurring the line that separates scientific writing and the broader media.”In an age in which the way science is presented in the news can have significant impacts for audiences, especially when it comes to health news, what can science communicators and journalists do to keep audiences reading without having to distort, hype, trivialize, dramatize or otherwise misrepresent science?Pigliucci believes that many different sources—press releases, blogs, newspapers and investigative science journalism pieces—can cross-check reported science and challenge its accuracy, if necessary. “There are examples of bloggers pointing out technical problems with published scientific papers,” Pigliucci said. “Unfortunately, as we all know, the game can be played the other way around too, with plenty of bloggers, ‘twitterers'' and others actually obfuscating and muddling things even more.” Pigliucci hopes to see a cultural change take place in science reporting, one that emphasizes “more reflective shouting, less shouting of talking points,” he said.Fox believes that journalists still need to cover scientific developments more responsibly, especially given that scientists are increasingly reaching out to press officers and the public. Journalists can inform, intrigue and entertain whilst maintaining accurate representations of the original science, but need to understand that preliminary results must be replicated and validated before being splashed on the front page. They should also strive to interview experts who do not have financial ties or competing interests in the research, and they should put scientific stories in the context of a broader process of nonlinear discovery. According to Pigliucci, journalists can and should be educating themselves on the research process and the science of logical conclusion-making, giving themselves the tools to provide critical and investigative coverage when needed. At the same time, scientists should undertake proper media training so that they are comfortable communicating their work to journalists or press officers.“I don''t think there is any fundamental flaw in how we communicate science, but there is a systemic flaw in the sense that we simply do not educate people about logical fallacies and cognitive biases,” Pigliucci said, advising that scientists and communicators alike should be intimately familiar with the subjects of philosophy and psychology. “As for bunk science, it has always been with us, and it probably always will be, because human beings are naturally prone to all sorts of biases and fallacious reasoning. As Carl Sagan once put it, science (and reason) is like a candle in the dark. It needs constant protection and a lot of thankless work to keep it alive.”     

A Quick Guide for Building a Successful Bioinformatics Community

“Scientific community” refers to a group of people collaborating together on scientific-research-related activities who also share common goals, interests, and values. Such communities play a key role in many bioinformatics activities. Communities may be linked to a specific location or institute, or involve people working at many different institutions and locations. Education and training is typically an important component of these communities, providing a valuable context in which to develop skills and expertise, while also strengthening links and relationships within the community. Scientific communities facilitate: (i) the exchange and development of ideas and expertise; (ii) career development; (iii) coordinated funding activities; (iv) interactions and engagement with professionals from other fields; and (v) other activities beneficial to individual participants, communities, and the scientific field as a whole. It is thus beneficial at many different levels to understand the general features of successful, high-impact bioinformatics communities; how individual participants can contribute to the success of these communities; and the role of education and training within these communities. We present here a quick guide to building and maintaining a successful, high-impact bioinformatics community, along with an overview of the general benefits of participating in such communities. This article grew out of contributions made by organizers, presenters, panelists, and other participants of the ISMB/ECCB 2013 workshop “The ‘How To Guide’ for Establishing a Successful Bioinformatics Network” at the 21st Annual International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB) and the 12th European Conference on Computational Biology (ECCB).     

The value of asking questions

Science begins by asking questions and then seeking answers. Young children understand this intuitively as they explore and try to make sense of their surroundings. However, science education focuses upon the end game of “facts” rather than the exploratory root of the scientific process. Encouraging questioning helps to bring the true spirit of science into our educational system, and the art of asking good questions constitutes an important skill to foster for practicing scientists.     

Current knowledge of vector-borne zoonotic pathogens in Zambia: A clarion call to scaling-up “One Health” research in the wake of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases

BackgroundAlthough vector-borne zoonotic diseases are a major public health threat globally, they are usually neglected, especially among resource-constrained countries, including those in sub-Saharan Africa. This scoping review examined the current knowledge and identified research gaps of vector-borne zoonotic pathogens in Zambia.Methods and findingsMajor scientific databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, CABI, Scientific Information Database (SID)) were searched for articles describing vector-borne (mosquitoes, ticks, fleas and tsetse flies) zoonotic pathogens in Zambia. Several mosquito-borne arboviruses have been reported including Yellow fever, Ntaya, Mayaro, Dengue, Zika, West Nile, Chikungunya, Sindbis, and Rift Valley fever viruses. Flea-borne zoonotic pathogens reported include Yersinia pestis and Rickettsia felis. Trypanosoma sp. was the only tsetse fly-borne pathogen identified. Further, tick-borne zoonotic pathogens reported included Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic fever virus, Rickettsia sp., Anaplasma sp., Ehrlichia sp., Borrelia sp., and Coxiella burnetii.ConclusionsThis study revealed the presence of many vector-borne zoonotic pathogens circulating in vectors and animals in Zambia. Though reports of human clinical cases were limited, several serological studies provided considerable evidence of zoonotic transmission of vector-borne pathogens in humans. However, the disease burden in humans attributable to vector-borne zoonotic infections could not be ascertained from the available reports and this precludes the formulation of national policies that could help in the control and mitigation of the impact of these diseases in Zambia. Therefore, there is an urgent need to scale-up “One Health” research in emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases to enable the country to prepare for future epidemics, including pandemics.     

Meeting report: Ocean ‘omics science,technology and cyberinfrastructure: current challenges and future requirements (August 20-23, 2013)

The National Science Foundation’s EarthCube End User Workshop was held at USC Wrigley Marine Science Center on Catalina Island, California in August 2013. The workshop was designed to explore and characterize the needs and tools available to the community that is focusing on microbial and physical oceanography research with a particular emphasis on ‘omic research. The assembled researchers outlined the existing concerns regarding the vast data resources that are being generated, and how we will deal with these resources as their volume and diversity increases. Particular attention was focused on the tools for handling and analyzing the existing data, on the need for the construction and curation of diverse federated databases, as well as development of shared, interoperable, “big-data capable” analytical tools. The key outputs from this workshop include (i) critical scientific challenges and cyber infrastructure constraints, (ii) the current and future ocean ‘omics science grand challenges and questions, and (iii) data management, analytical and associated and cyber-infrastructure capabilities required to meet critical current and future scientific challenges. The main thrust of the meeting and the outcome of this report is a definition of the ‘omics tools, technologies and infrastructures that facilitate continued advance in ocean science biology, marine biogeochemistry, and biological oceanography.     

“Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences

The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences with physical sciences at the top, social sciences at the bottom, and biological sciences in-between is nearly 200 years old. This order is intuitive and reflected in many features of academic life, but whether it reflects the “hardness” of scientific research—i.e., the extent to which research questions and results are determined by data and theories as opposed to non-cognitive factors—is controversial. This study analysed 2434 papers published in all disciplines and that declared to have tested a hypothesis. It was determined how many papers reported a “positive” (full or partial) or “negative” support for the tested hypothesis. If the hierarchy hypothesis is correct, then researchers in “softer” sciences should have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore report more positive outcomes. Results confirmed the predictions at all levels considered: discipline, domain and methodology broadly defined. Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values. These results suggest that the nature of hypotheses tested and the logical and methodological rigour employed to test them vary systematically across disciplines and fields, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and possibly other factors (e.g., a field''s level of historical and/or intellectual development). On the other hand, these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.     

The breakthrough paradox: How focusing on one form of innovation jeopardizes the advancement of science

Research needs a balance of risk‐taking in “breakthrough projects” and gradual progress. For building a sustainable knowledge base, it is indispensable to provide support for both. Subject Categories: Careers, Economics, Law & Politics, Science Policy & Publishing

Science is about venturing into the unknown to find unexpected insights and establish new knowledge. Increasingly, academic institutions and funding agencies such as the European Research Council (ERC) explicitly encourage and support scientists to foster risky and hopefully ground‐breaking research. Such incentives are important and have been greatly appreciated by the scientific community. However, the success of the ERC has had its downsides, as other actors in the funding ecosystem have adopted the ERC’s focus on “breakthrough science” and respective notions of scientific excellence. We argue that these tendencies are concerning since disruptive breakthrough innovation is not the only form of innovation in research. While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science. This is problematic since, paradoxically, breakthrough potential in science builds on gradual innovation. If the value of gradual innovation is not better recognized, the potential for breakthrough innovation may well be stifled.

While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science.

Concerns that the hypercompetitive dynamics of the current scientific system may impede rather than spur innovative research have been voiced for many years (Alberts et al, 2014). As performance indicators continue to play a central role for promotions and grants, researchers are under pressure to publish extensively, quickly, and preferably in high‐ranking journals (Burrows, 2012). These dynamics increase the risk of mental health issues among scientists (Jaremka et al, 2020), dis‐incentivise relevant and important work (Benedictus et al, 2016), decrease the quality of scientific papers (Sarewitz, 2016) and induce conservative and short‐term thinking rather than risk‐taking and original thinking required for scientific innovation (Alberts et al, 2014; Fochler et al, 2016). Against this background, strong incentives for fostering innovative and daring research are indispensable.     

Modeling the States of Matter in a First-Grade Classroom

ABSTRACT

Scientific modeling along with hands-on inquiry can lead to a deeper understanding of scientific concepts among students in upper elementary grades. Even though scientific modeling involves abstract-thinking processes, can students in younger elementary grades successfully participate in scientific modeling? Scientific modeling, like all other aspects of scientific inquiry, has to be developed. This article clearly outlines how students in a first-grade classroom can develop and use scientific models to explain the properties and behaviors of solids, liquids, and gases in a unit on the states of matter.     

2020年发表的全球维管植物新种

为了解世界维管植物新物种的基本信息, 明确生物多样性面临的威胁, 总结未来研究方向, 本文对2020年世界维管植物新物种的数据进行了统计分析。根据国际植物名称索引(IPNI)的记录, 截至2021年2月1日, 2020年全球发现1,747种维管植物新种, 由1,544名植物学家(264位中国植物学家, 1,280位国外植物学家)发表在103种期刊和5本书中。1,747种维管植物新种包括被子植物1,689种、蕨类植物52种、裸子植物6种。其中大部分来源于维管植物最大的几个科, 例如菊科、兰科和胡椒科。植物学家描述的美洲南部和热带亚洲维管植物新种超过828种, 是2020年维管植物新种发现最重要的两个地区。中国、巴西和马达加斯加是2020年贡献维管植物新种最多的前三位, 分别有247、223、99个新种。值得关注的是, Phytotaxa和PhytoKeys是2020年发表维管植物新种的主要期刊, 分别发表644种和168种。在各物种新名称中, 有5个无效名称和2个不合法名称。尽管近年来对生物多样性的关注日益增加, 但世界上仍有许多物种尚未被发现, 需要对各个地区植物进一步调查和研究, 尤其是生物多样性热点地区和岛屿地区。     

Translational Science: Epistemology and the Investigative Process

The term “translational science” has recently become very popular with its usage appearing to be almost exclusively related to medicine, in particular, the “translation” of biological knowledge into medical practice. Taking the perspective that translational science is somehow different than science and that sound science is grounded in an epistemology developed over millennia, it seems imperative that the meaning of translational science be carefully examined, especially how the scientific epistemology manifests itself in translational science. This paper examines epistemological issues relating mainly to modeling in translational science, with a focus on optimal operator synthesis. It goes on to discuss the implications of epistemology on the nature of collaborations conducive to the translational investigative process. The philosophical concepts are illustrated by considering intervention in gene regulatory networks.